Why System Two thinking remains crucial to brand growth strategies today.
Nobody deliberates over purchases anymore, right? It’s all about the gut and system one thinking—mental availability, emotions, and category entry points. Right? Well, not quite. If what your brand offers is important in people’s lives, if it costs more than a routine contactless payment or quick 'buy now' tap, then buyers will be considering their choices carefully. In this post we highlight why System Two thinking is crucial to brand growth across the categories consumers truly value.
Beyond System One: Why System Two Thinking Still Matters in Today’s Market
For well over a decade, the dominant view in marketing has been that consumer decisions are largely instinctive—what’s known as System One thinking. Brands have been encouraged to focus on fast, gut-level responses, building mental availability, and distinctive assets and associations to win quick, low-effort decisions. And on the surface, this makes sense: people are busy, bombarded with information, and take mental shortcuts to simplify choices.
However, is this approach universally relevant and does it ensure in the mid-2020s? Our own research in the digital, media, and tech sectors shows that System One strategies, while powerful in certain contexts, don’t apply equally across all categories or purchase situations. For products and services that play a significant role in people’s lives—where the stakes are high and choices demand thought—exploration of System Two thinking is essential in becoming the brand of choice.
The Case for System One: Low Engagement, Low Stakes
System One strategies work exceptionally well for low-consideration, habitual purchases where consumers are on autopilot. Take the supermarket, for example: consumers race through aisles making decisions in seconds, guided by familiar packaging, promotional offers, and brands they’ve seen advertised. Here, mental shortcuts and quick cues dominate.
For these routine purchases, implicit research techniques—focusing on distinctive assets, straplines, category entry points and behavioural nudges—are highly effective. Brands thrive by removing effort, standing out, and staying top of mind.
However, cracks appear when System One principles are applied indiscriminately across categories, particularly where decisions are more involved, considered and costly.
The Reality of System Two: High Engagement, High Stakes
In categories involving significant cost, complexity, or impact, consumer behaviour shifts. Think of choosing a mobile phone provider, a home energy supplier, or a digital subscription service. These decisions are rarely snap judgments. Instead, consumers research, they compare, and they deliberate. They ask questions like:
How does it compare to my current solution? Is is better than the competition?
Will this service actually deliver the benefits I need? What do existing customers think?
Is the price justified? Is it competitive? How long is the commitment?
How easy is it to use? Will it require effort?
System One cues like a memorable ad or a standout asset might get your brand noticed, but they won’t win over a consumer weighing up questions like these about longer-term value, features, or experiences. Here, System Two—considered, rational decision-making—takes precedence.
What this means for brand and marketing research: Moving Beyond System One Bias
The rise of System One thinking has influenced how much of today’s research is conducted. Techniques and models like facial coding, implicit testing, nudge-based experiments and Category Entry Points models aim to tap into subconscious, gut-level responses. These methods are valuable for optimising ads, packaging and messages in low-consideration scenarios but risk missing the bigger picture in high-stakes categories.
To understand more deliberate decisions, research must go deeper. Methods like ethnographic diary studies, qualitative interviews, and comprehensive surveys are essential to uncover the full consumer journey—from initial need, through to awareness and on to detailed evaluation.
The Danger of Recognition Without Relevance
Brands overly reliant on System One risk prioritising recall and recognition at the expense of relevance. In high-consideration categories, consumers look beyond these factors; they care about how well a product or service fits their needs and delivers value. Recognition alone won’t sway a decision when the stakes are high. Many choose brands that weren’t on their mental lists. Exploring Product-Market-Fit of brand propositions and experiences, and the real journeys customers take, are far more important than the distinctiveness of assets or recall of ads and straplines.
Striking the Right Balance
But the debate isn’t System One vs. System Two; both play important roles in consumer decision-making. The challenge is to strike the right balance based on the category, audience, and purchase context.
Understand When System One Applies: For routine, low-stakes purchases, focus on building strong distinctive assets, leveraging mental shortcuts, and simplifying choices.
Recognise System Two’s Importance: In categories where decisions are deliberate and significant, System Two strategies are critical. Provide clear information, demonstrate value, and support rational evaluation.
Adapt Research Methods: Don’t rely solely on implicit techniques and System One derived metrics. Gather explorative insights and data, apply frameworks based around value and brand switching behaviour, to capture the complexities of the consumer decision-making process.
A Balanced Approach for Today’s Market
System One has had its moment—and for good reason. It simplifies decision-making, drives habitual choices, and optimises quick wins. But for products and services that matter, where costs are significant and the consumer’s journey extends beyond minutes, System Two thinking remains essential. In sectors like subscriptions, technology, media, and telecoms, a balanced approach is essential - one that reflects the realities of today’s market, the role of consumer value and the full complexity of decision-making.
